virtual relationships Flashcards
virtual relationships
The term virtual relationships encompasses all kinds of electronic communication methods by which relationships can be formed and maintained.
• Email
• Instant messaging
• Chat rooms,
• Texts
• Social media
introduction
As the use of the internet has increased psychologists have become increasing interested in online relationships (CMC).
• Self disclosure
• How does it work in the virtual world.
Two main contrasting Theories
• The reduced cues theory
• The hyperpersonal model
Reduced cues theory
Sproull and Kiesler (1986) suggest that CMC relationships are less effective that FtF because they lack cues that we often depend on.
-Non-verbal communication
• Physical appearance
• Tone of voice
• Facial expressions
RCT-deindividuation
-Reduction in a person’s sense of individual identity.
• Which in turn encourages disinhibition in relating to others
• Blunt and aggressive communication are more likely in virtual relationships.
RCT-A reluctance to self-disclose
You are unlikely to want to initiate a relationship with someone who is impersonal or want to reveal innermost feelings to them.
Hyperpersonal model
Walther (1996, 2011) however argues that virtual relationships can be more intimate and can involve more self-disclosure.
• Often develop very quickly and, once established, are more intense.
• Can also end more quickly
• Excitement without trust.
• Boom and Bust phenomenon.
HPM-selective self presentation
• Senders of messages have time to manipulate their online image.
-More control over cues and disclosure.
• Present themselves in an idealized way.
Hyperhonest / Hyperdishonest
• Feedback from the receiver acts as reinforcement for self-presentation.
HPM-anonymity
• Anonymity is another element of CMC
relationships that promotes self-disclosure.
• Strangers on a train effect (Bargh et al. 2002).
• People don’t know you, so you feel less accountable for your behaviour.
• May disclose more.
absence of gating
Ft relationships are often considered to be “gated”.
• It involves features that could interfere with the early development of a relationship.
• Could lead to the relationship failing to form.
• Physical elements
• A stammer
• Social anxiety or shyness
• Attention is directed away from the superficial.
• Self-disclosure can get a point where it is frequent and intimate.
• Allows relationships to get off the ground
People are also free to be who they want to be.
Creation of untrue identities.
Limitation-lack of research support for RCT
A limitation is that there is a lack of research support for reduced cues theory. The theory is wrong to suggest that cues are missing from CMC - they are just different.
Walther and Tidwell (1995) point out that people in online interactions use other cues such as style and timing of their messages. For example it is thought that taking time to reply is often interpreted as a more intimate act than an immediate response. But not to much time as this may be seen as a snub.
Additionally acrostics such as LOL, emoticons and emojis are also used as effective substitutes for facial expression and tone of voice
Therefore the success of such online communication is difficult for the reduced cues theory to explain because it shows that CMC interactions can be just as personal as FtF ones and that it is possible to express emotional states in virtual relationships.
Limitation-lack of research support for HPM
One limitation of the hyperpersonal model is that it is challenges by the findings of meta-analyses.
For example, Ruppel et al carried out a meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared self-disclosures in Ft and virtual interactions. They found that self-report studies showed that the frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures were all greater in Ft relationships.
This contradicts the hyperpersonal mode’s prediction that the greater intimacy of virtual relationships should lead to more and deeper self-disclosures than in face to face communications.
counterpoint
However, despite this evidence, there is some support for the idea that that Ft and virtual relationships differ in the type of self-disclosure used. Whitty and Joinson (2009) summarise evidence showing how self-presentation is manipulated in virtual relationship.
For example, questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate. Equally people will often invent attractive qualities for their online dating profiles This is quite different from FtF conversations which generally involve features such as “small talk” rather than intense hyper-honesty or dishonesty.
This supports the model’s claims about hyper-dishonest and hyper-honest self-disclosures and shows there are differences between Ft and virtual relationships.
support for absence of gating-positive social implications
One positive element of the lack of gates in CMC relationships is that shy, lonely and socially anxious people find virtual relationships especially valuable.
McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious people and found that these people were able to express their true selves more than in FtF situations. Of the romantic relationships initially formed by shy people online, 71% survived for at least 2 years, compared to only 49% for relationships formed by shy people in the FtF relationships (Kirkpatrick and Davis, 1994).
Not only does this show the positive impact that virtual relationships can have on the romantic relationships that shy people form online, but arguably it also shows that CMCs can provide an opportunity for lonely and socially anxious people to connect with others, which would have a positive impact on their wellbeing and mental health on grand scale.
